Latest News:
Reuters reports that Bayerische Landesbank has launched a lawsuit in a New York district court against Aladdin Capital over a synthetic CDO. The German bank is seeking to recover $60 million, alleging that Aladdin managed the portfolio negligently, according to the article.
Although there have been a number of recent lawsuits relating to synthetic CDOs, this one is unusual in that it is the manager that is being sued. Furthermore, the reference portfolio in this 2007 deal, Aladdin Synthetic CDO II, which was arranged by Goldman Sachs, is entirely corporate.
According to Reuters, the 100 name portfolio has suffered 11 credit events. The FT’s Alphaville column adds that Aladdin’s portfolio substitutions made the original reference portfolio considerably worse. It says that the original portfolio included only one Icelandic bank, but that Aladdin switched into the other two Icelandic banks in early 2008. More than half of all the credit events in the portfolio were on names that the manager had added since the start of the deal.
A relatively unusual feature of this CSO was its ability to take short positions. However, according to the complaint (see 2011-02-01 Bayerische Landesbank complaint (PDF, 241.0 kb) the manager failed to make any use of a feature which Bayerische Landesbank says could have compensated for some of the defaults in the portfolio.
Bayerische Landesbank lost all its $60 million investment in the deal, with both the class B1 notes (originally rated AA by Standard & Poor’s) and the S&P A rated class C1 notes both wiped out. See details of the original offering circular (2011-02-01 Aladdin Synthetic CDO II OM (PDF, 940.6 kb).


It is recommended that you do not log out if you regularly access Creditflux on this computer.
Once you have logged out you will need to re-register by entering your email address and receiving an email from us to gain access.
Click here if you are sure you want to log out.

Already a registered user? Click here to login.

This article is only available
to Creditflux subscribers.
Already a subscriber? Click here.
As a part of your trial subscription
you will receive:


Bookmarking this article will save it in your membership area for your reference at a later date. You can bookmark as many articles as you like.
To access your membership area click here or on 'Manage My Account' located in the top right hand corner of any page. You must be logged into the site to use this feature.
For help, please contact us on
+44(0) 20 7253 9510.
I agree with the comment below, from my experience what normally happens in these situations is that the manager (Aladdin) simply calls up the swap counterparty (Goldman) and says "the deal is about to get downgraded can you suggest some substitutions that work for you that maintains the deal's rating". These are then proposed to the manager and if he accepts them the substitutions take place and the deal's rating is restored. In many cases the deal simply becomes the counterparty for the arranger's prop trading desk which is why the story above is so common of multiple Icelandic banks being substituted in and over half the names being added defaulting
I wonder if Aladdin - or any synthetic CDO manager - really understood correctly the relationship between adding/removing names in the portfolio and its impact on the subordination. If Aladdin deliberately added risky names, they may have gotten a benefit for the deal in terms of higher subordination.